Talk:Johnny Hazzard
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page. |
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
||
[edit] Birth name has to be sourced
From Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons: Remove unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material:
Editors should remove any controversial material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. In cases where the information is derogatory and poorly sourced or unsourced, this kind of edit is an exception to the three-revert rule. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Wikipedia:Libel. Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and controversial in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion (see WP:CSD criterion G10 for more details). Jimmy Wales has said:
He considers "no" information to be better than "speculative" information and reemphasizes the need for sensitivity:
- "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." [1]
- "Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia." [2]
(Emphasis added.)
[edit] Further comments about personal info
Please do not reinsert the information about his birth name until a verifiable source for the information is found. Thanks.—Chidom talk 18:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- And you are making assumptions and using wikilawyering to try to beat down any opposition. That does not resolve the issue, it escalates it. Wjhonson 18:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Per WP:BIO and WP:PORN the unverified name has been removed. Please do not revert/repost this material until you can provide a verifiable cite from a reliable source. Thanks. Doc Tropics 20:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Chidom has escalated this confrontation by accusing me of "libel". That is utterly outrageous. I'm so angry I can barely type. Until I receive an unconditional apology from Chidom for this behaviour, this will not end. Wjhonson 02:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- The information in question is the remark that he was original born as "*name removed*". I merely added the "citation needed" tag, and then Chidom posted a WARNING to my talk page that I was libeling someone. That type of behavior cannot be supported. Wjhonson 02:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- This is stupid. Wjhonson, the name has been removed by three independent editors, two of us have explained why in detail, and you've recently been warned by an admin. Which part of policy don't you understand? This is not even subject to debate: stop inserting the information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Doc Tropics (talk • contribs) 23:55, November 27, 2006.
Uggh, Wikipedia keeps that kind of information around in its history forever, and for a porn star, getting that information put onto Wikipedia is almost like somebody else getting their phone number put onto here. I know a guy whose real name got out (not from Wikipedia), and his family got plastered with love requests for the guy. I don't suppose their is any way to try to suppress such information from the history, is there, it looks like it might go back a bit too far to do too much about. -Todd(Talk-Contribs) 19:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- There is a way, it's called Wikipedia:Oversight. I don't have the power to do this, you have to ask someone else for it. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_oversight. AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Weighing in as an administrator, who has gotten in trouble for this exact issue before. What Chidom and Doc Tropics write is exactly correct. The real name of a porn star who uses a stage name is a controversial issue, and can not be added without strong, reliable, verifiable sources. It can't just be added unsourced and marked {{fact}} hoping someone else will find the sources. Until we find sufficient sources, it can not be added. This may or may not be libel, defamation, or a dozen other legal terms, I don't know, I'm not a lawyer. But this is Wikipedia policy, namely Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, and Wikipedia:Verifiability. I realize Wjhonson has the best of intentions, and I sympathize fully with them - after finishing writing this post, I'm going to out and run several searches for qualifying sources that can back this information. However, until and unless we find it, we can't add it, and, unfortunately, though I do sympathize, it will be my duty as an admin with knowledge in this area, to back that injunction with administrative powers if this information is restored without sufficient sources. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Can't find it. It's a common enough last name, there are several people connected with porn that use it, but nothing that links it to Hazzard. Sorry. The good news is that it will be unlikely it will be connected with a specific real person or family either, as Todd worries, above. AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
